Cosmology

Ontology and Cosmology

According to a general definition of terms, “Ontology” is the branch of philosophy that  deals with the nature of being. The origin of the universe and its cosmology is a question which concerns not only science, but philosophy and especially the metaphysical branch called ontology.  So, ontology, generally speaking, has to do with the study of existence. 

Cosmology, on the other hand, studies the origin, evolution, and fate of the universe. Since cosmology focuses on the origin of the universe, there are inevitable metaphysical questions which arise that are difficult to resolve.  Physical science properly is concerned with that part of existence which may be directly observed, quantified, and mathematically interpreted. And yet the origin of the universe can hardly be observed directly.

As Stephen Hawkings puts it:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

As a consequence scientists generally avoid the metaphysical aspects of cosmology that cannot be directly observed. Since events before the Big Bang are not defined and cannot be measured, there is no point in discussing them. 

In spite of the attempts of Hawkings and company to develop a "Theory of Everything," no mathematical model exists which may comprehend the entirety of cosmic experience. Apart from directly observable phenomenon,  ontology and cosmology involve metaphysical as well as  philosophical components.

Physical scientists study the relationship between space and time. Space is normally considered to have three dimensions: extension, height, and width. When a point is extended into space it becomes a one-dimensional line. A line with width is a two-dimensional plane. And a two-dimensional plane with height becomes a three-dimensional cube. The existence of the cube has stability within the fourth dimension of time.

Physical scientists try to resolve the problems of existence by examining the nature of three-dimensional space moving through the fourth dimension of time. And so physicists become interested in the stuff that material objects are composed of, as well as how those objects move through the space time continuum. And so we have mathematical formulas for such things as the velocity of a falling object. These mathematical formulas are useful in developing useful technologies for living. Since the time of the early civilizations, man has developed considerably in applying different mathematical formulas to the movement of objects.

In Egypt, India, in ancient Greece, the stars and planets were observed, and geometrical figures were examined. Pythagoras considered mathematics to be a mystic science capable of revealing the secrets of the universe. The ancient pyramids were built based on astronomical observation. As man progressed these mathematical formulas governing the movements of objects were employed in developing engines of war. Both Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo Galilei spent long hours understanding the trajectory of cannonballs. And so they advanced the science of ballistics.

Newton's thermodynamic laws went a long way towards explaining the natural world. And yet, in the 20th century, it was found that Newton's calculations were unable to explain the movements of subatomic particles and the variations in the movements of distant planets. Einstein, Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, developed an understanding of non-Newtonian reality. Quantum physics was born. The theory of relativity.

But none of these theories attempted to explain the nature of reality beyond certain objects subject to the laws of physics. Einstein insisted that reality is not three-dimensional. In fact, he considered that any study of reality must contemplate the fourth dimension of time.

The mind: a 5^th Dimension?

But, physical science by its own admission ignores any phenomenon which resists mathematical explanation. On the other hand the universal philosophy found in all ancient wisdom traditions  has long considered the existence of more than four dimensions. 

What of the mind?

 Is the world in the mind or is the mind in the world? The physical scientists demand that this question not be asked. If the world is in the mind, then reality is subjective. The use of the words subject and object are curious and not well understood by ordinary people. This is philosophical language, meant to be used by elite scholars in their ivory towers. But consider: if you are the subject, then the world is your object. It is the object of sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste. These sensations take place in the mind. Cognitive scientists say they take place in the brain. But is the mind in the brain or is the brain in the mind. We are advised not to ask these questions. It is taboo for scientists in any university to investigate the existence of the mind proper.

 

According to the philosophical school of logical positivism we should only accept what can be proven. No proof exists for the reality of the mind: it has no mathematical model. Millions of IT experts have been hard at work with supercomputers since the 1980s trying to develop a model of artificial intelligence that works. Ray Kurzweil, inventor of optical character readers and speech recognition argues that a singularity approaches where computers will be smarter than we are. And yet the workings of the mind still elude mathematical explanation. At the same time brilliant men deny the very existence of mind.

Berkeley’s idealism was supposedly refuted long ago by a man who kicked a chair and said, “I refute Berkely thus.” But where is that man? And where is that chair? The doubter and his chair have ceased to exist, but Berkeley’s idea still rouses debate. Bishop Berkeley asked the fascinating question: if the world goes unperceived, how can it exist? The world only exists as long as it is perceived. When there is no perception, there is no existence. This is considered an extreme view. And yet, quantum physicists studying the inner secrets of subatomic particles find that perception influences reality. It may be time to look at the mental universe. Is mind another dimension? Ontologically speaking it is impossible to discard the mind as a dimension of reality.

 

More Dimensions of Reality?

So, with extension, width, height, we have three dimensions. And with time we discover another dimension. Mental reality the fifth dimension. And cognitive science, or intelligence may be considered a sixth dimension. Now mental reality and cognitive reality are really aspects of an even higher dimension: consciousness. So, a proper ontology should not only consider space time as an object of study. Ontology must consider the nature of mind, intelligence, and consciousness.

Academic scientists, unfortunately,  are determined to avoid any experiment that smacks of metaphysics. No mathematical model exists to explain consciousness. The different forces of energy that govern subatomic particles, for example gravity or the weak force are difficult enough to study. Why take on problems with no explanation?

Physical scientists dedicate themselves to the study of the give and take between physical and matter and and energy. The flow of different forces. The velocity of moving objects.  

But is it really so easy to describe a physical object? Take a baseball, for example. If you know where the pitcher stands and how fast he throws the ball, you can understand exactly when the ball will reach the catcher's glove. Right? That's what my physics teacher told me in high school. Of course, it's not enough to know that the pitcher throws the ball at 90 miles an hour, or that he stands 90 feet away from the catcher. One must also take into consideration the height of the pitcher's mound. Then there's gravity. Gravity will influence the decay of velocity as the ball flies from the hands of Sandy Koufax. Air has mass. As the baseball moves through the air it will encounter friction. A mathematical formula is needed. Now, even if we can neatly calculate all the variables involved in the pitch, we have another distinct problem. The earth is moving through space and time. And as we know from Einstein, space and time are relative. If you can calculate perfectly the velocity of the baseball, you may predict a general outcome. But where is the earth? What is the relative position of the catcher in absolute terms? 

Another problem is time itself. Does time exist? Or is time a relative consideration constructed by human beings to explain aspects of their physical reality? The problem is, even if you can isolate physical reality from consciousness it's difficult to have an absolute proof even of something so objective as a baseball pitch. This uncertainty makes life difficult for scientists. 

The application of the close study of reality at the physical level is usually some form of technology. But think about it. Does technology always work? In fact the consequence of technological advancement is often at the detriment of human life and the life of the planet. So while a metaphysical discussion may make us nervous, or comfortable, it may be considered worthwhile to contemplate ontology.

Different Dimensions and Consciousness

According to modern physics, Time is to be considered as the 4th dimention. Three-dimensional space plus time equals four dimensions. But we cannot conceive three-dimensional space without the mind. 

Mind, Intelligence, Consciousness

Mental conception +4 dimensions gives us five dimensions. But beyond three-dimensional four dimensional fifth dimensional space time and mind there is intelligence. Six dimensions. And beyond intelligence, consciousness. Seven dimensions.

Consciousness is the highest dimension of all these, since it is beyond the capacity of the mind or intelligence to measure. Consciousness is superior to mind and intelligence and thus beyond the purvey of meta-cognitive ratiocination.

Now just to take us another step further: what if these six dimensions were the by-product of a superior consciousness? In Sanskrit, the relationship between subject and object is described as Purusha and Prakriti, where Purusha is the masculine, generative principle and Prakriti is the feminine receptive principle.  Purush is the subject and Prakriti is the object. The material world is also described as prakriti.  But in a sense, all jiva souls are considered to be the energy or prakriti of the divine Purush, or Supreme Conscious Principle, the Super-subject.

Super-subjective Consciousness is called Paramatma

In terms of dimensions this is a higher consideration: the super-subjective plane. 

Super-consciousness is  the  supreme subject, and individual consciousness is the object. 

It is sometimes said that "we create our own reality." This is an extreme form of idealism. If reality is a function of consciousness, and we are conscious beings, don't we create reality? If the world is in the mind, then isn't the world our own mental construct?

Well this is true in a sense.  Certain aspects of reality in the illusory world we live in have been created as a consequence of our own mental conjuring, our imagination, if you like. But the stuff of reality depends on a higher power for its concrete existence. 

Mahavishnu dreaming the Multiverses into existence

If reality only exists when perceived, then what happens if no one is perceiving? If we consider the existence of superconscious, then we find that our reality in multi-dimensions is always perceived by super consciousness even in our sleep. Super-consciousness is called "Paramatma" in the Vedas and is understood as the Supreme Consciousness, beyond the individual consciousness of the jiva soul. The Vedic conception sees multi-levels of consciousness and cosmic ontology, with a higher meta-consciousness dreaming the world into existence. This is the Mahavishnu form.

These are some basic concepts about cosmology spoken of in the ancient wisdom traditions of India, especially in the Vedanta. The symbolism of the Vedas is hard to fathom, yet the idea of a powerful, eternal super-consciousness beyond the limited time-space continuum of our mortal cosmos is timeless and worth contemplating.

The Multiverse

As the modern astronomers and quantum physicists are gasping for a unified field theory the idea of the multiverse is becoming more and more common. ^[i]So it is interesting that the most modern of quantum astro-physicists co-incide with the mythic cosmology of the Puranas. Scientists grasping for explanations of cosmic phenomena have a tendency to develop their own outlandish mythologies. 

Mythology here is understood as a good story that explains a lot but can’t be proven. I’m reminded of the myth of Schrodinger’s Cat, or the Big Bang Saga, Marxian Mythology of Economics, Post-Darwinian Behavioral Psychology, or Subatomic Quantum String Theory. Of course, when mythology is practiced by scientists is has more validity than voodoo. 

And metaphysics is always voodoo where science is concerned. In scientific circles it’s easier to get a grant for the perpetual motion machine of Cold Fusion than for any reasonable study into the nature of consciousness.

The close-mindedness of the positivist mythology was identified by biological research scientist Rupert Sheldrake in his excellent book, The Science Delusion: “I have spent all my adult life as a scientist,” he says, “and I strongly believe in the importance of the scientific approach. Yet I have become increasingly convinced that the sciences hav lost much of their vigour, vitality, and curiosity. Dogmatic ideology, fear-based conformity and institutional inertia are inhibiting scientific creativity…In public, scientists are very aware of the powerful taboos that restrict the range of permissible topics…I believe the sciences will be more exciting and engaging when the move beyond the dogmas that restrict free enquiry and imprison imaginations.”

Without wishing to plagiarize Sheldrake’s entire premise, his introduction is worth quoting from further:

“The Ten Dogmas of Modern Science:

The ‘scientific worldview’ is immensely influential because the sciences have been so successful. They touch all our lives through technologies and through modern medicine. Our intellectural world has been transformed by an immense expansion of knowledge, down into the most microscopic particles of matter and out into the vastness of space, with hundreds of billions of galaxies in an ever-expanding universe.

…In this book, I argue that science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun.

The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out, but in principle, the fundamental questions are settled. Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or physical. There is no reality but material reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds. These beliefs are powerful, not because most scientists thinking about them critically, but because they don’t. These beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds.  This belief-system became dominant within science in the late nine-teenth century and is now taken for granted. Many scientists are unaware that materialism is an assumption: they simply think of it as science, or the scientific view of reality, or the scientific worldview. They are not actually taught about it, or given a chance to discuss it. They absorb it by a kind of intellectual osmosis.^[ii]

Dr. Sheldrake argues at length about the modern taboo against any metaphysical explanation of reality need not be driven home any further. 

Part of the problem behind this discussion is the absolute insistence by some that the world is flat and was created in 7 days out of nothing. If the debate is always between Christian Creationists and the New Atheists headed by Richard Dawkins and company, it is no debate at all. But why should the debate be so black and white? Often, people turn to the philosophy of the East for a gradation of subtlety, but this philosophy is largely misunderstood.

For example, at least six different ancient philosophies of India may be considered analytical, or even atheist. The idea of atoms and the void were first discussed in India a thousand years before Democritus. This idea is current among scientists today, but was discarded long ago by the ancient wisdom traditions that support the concept of consciousness as the foundation of all being. Shankaracharya propounded his own version of subjective reality five hundred years after Christ, when the ancestors of Richard Dawkins, the Druidic nomads of England wandered about painting themselves blue and revering the pagan traditions we know as Halloween. Atoms in the void is nothing new. Nor are Multiverses.

The so-called “Vedic” cosmology of the universe is as riddled with error as the Ptolomaic version, as was the Newtonion version. But the Bhagavat cosmology is distinct from the Vedic, since it attempts to explain not only the positions of stars and planets, but our place in the universe as conscious beings. This is cosmology as ontology and it is worth reflection as we cast about for alternative views about reality.

Any spiritual cosmology of the universe contemplates the relationship between the physical and metaphysical worlds. Or how does consciousness and the metaphysical impact the material physical world? This is a deep question worthy of much thought and contemplation. One may get light from reading any number of books.

A fascinating critique of materialistic scientism is made by the great 19^th century Vaishnava thinker, scholar, poet, and expert in Vedic literature  Bhaktivinod Thakura, whose son Saraswati Thakura went on to lead an important spiritual movement in India. In his book, Tattva-Viveka, written in the late nineteenth century, Bhaktivinoda Thakura argues as follows:

 “The philosophy of materialism searches for a single principle that is the root of all existence. This is a great folly. If one thinks the material atoms are eternal, the void is eternal, the relation between the void and the material elements is inconceivable, and the powers, qualities and actions of the material atoms are also eternal, and all these things are eternal and beginningless, then he cannot accept that the material world was ever created. A person who accepts these ideas cannot reduce the material world to a single underlying principle…The philosophy of materialism is unnatural and unscientific. It is unnatural because every nature has a cause. To assume that matter is eternal and is the cuase of consciousness which appears only as a by-product of matter, is very illogical. The presenece of cuases and effects is natural in the world of gross matter. Without cuases and effects the material world would not be as it is. The philosophy of Materialism is unscientific because consciousness has the power to manipulate and control inert matter. Therefore the idea that consciousness is merely a by-product of matter is fiercely opposed to scientific thinking. Consciousness is naturally superior to iinert matter. Only fools say consciousness is a by-product of matter…No one has ever seen human consciousness created from dull material elements. Only fools believe this will ever happen. In three thousand years of human history no one has ever seen a human being spontaneously manifested from inert matter. If human life is manifest from the spontaneous interactions of material elements, then in the course of all those years at least one human being would have been spontaneously manifested from inert matter.”

In more than a century of amazing scientific accomplishments, nothing has changed. Going back to Rupert Sheldrake, writing in 2010,

“For more than two hundred years, materialists have promised that science will eventually explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry. Science will prove that living organisms are complex machines, minds are nothing but brain activity and nature is purposeless. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called this stance ‘promissory materialsm’ because it depends on issuing promissory notes for discoveries not yet made. Despite all the achievements of science and technology, materialism is now facing a credibility crunch that was unimaginable in the twentieth century…The problems of development and consciousness remain unsolved. Many details have been discovered, dozens of genomes have been sequenced, and brain scans are ever more precise. But there is still no proof that life and minds can be explained by physics and chemistry alone. The fundamental proposition of materialism is that matter is the only reality. Therefore consciousness is nothing but brain activity.  However, among contemporary researchers in neuroscience and consciousness studes there is no consensus about the nature of minds. The philosopher David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the ‘hard problem.’…Materialism provided a seemingly simple, straightforward worldview in the late nineteenth century, but twenty-first century science has left it behind.”

As consumers of technology and science we have been taught that the argument is over, that philosophy and metaphysics have lost and that science has already explained everything. But the great gurus of so-called science, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins have done no such thing. Rather than entertain the great questions, they invest their time in being celebrities and hailing their great accomplishments. Hawkings admits that much of the attempts at unified theories are really speculations with built-in fudge factors. Ontology and cosmology are incredibly difficult nuts to crack. The big questions of cosmology, as for example “What is the universe,, and where did it come” really depend on the big questions of ontology:  “What is consciousness? How does it differ from matter? Where does it come from?” And these questions are far from solved. What we are told is that the questions themselves are irrelevant, or don’t make sense scientifically and are not worth asking.

Famous cognitive scientists and biologists squirm when it comes to giving a description of consciousness. E.O. Wilson, for example: “The brain and its satellite glands have now been probed to the point where no particular site remains that can reasonable be supposed to harbor a nonphysical mind.” So, the brain is a miraculous piece of meat. We are unable to physically locate the “mind” in the brain, and therefore there is no such thing as a nonphysical mind. Of course, it’s also impossible to find a physical mind. Stephen Pinker blithely asserts that “mind is the activity of the brain.” So the soul is the same as the mind and the mind is a phenomena produced by the thinking powers of a piece of meat called the brain. If mind and soul are phenomena produced by electric meat, why can’t we electrify a dead brain and produce a soul? Dr. Frankenstein was a fictional character in Mary Shelley’s 19^th brain. But with all our computer science, internet, and Ray Kurzweil’s approaching singularity such a simple feat is still, clearly impossible. The conclusions of science should be reproducible. So if it is correct science that brain-meat plus electricity produces the phenomenon known as mind or soul, let Stephen Pinker and friends reproduce the phenomenon. Bhaktivinod Thakura’s 19^th century challenge holds as does that of Mary Shelly and Dr. Frankenstein. How does scientist dogma and speculation qualify as fact and theory without the rigors of clinical proof or evidence. Those who are so determined to set aside the Cartesian “mind-body problem” as sophomoric would do well to probe the questions set by the great French mathematician much more deeply. Scientists like Rupert Sheldrake point out that mere acceptance of scientistic belief sets is insufficient to ferret out the true nature of biology, ontology and physical nature itself.

In her excellent book on scientist dogma and the intellectual poverty it engenders, Absence of Mind, author Marilynne Robinson writes:

If the brain at the level of complex and nuanced interaction with itself does indeed become mind, then the reductionaist approach insisted upon by writers on the subject is not capable of yielding evidence of mind’s existence, let alone an account of its functioning. One who has inquired into the properties of hydrogen and oxygen might reasonable conclude that water is a highly combustible gas—if there were not his own experience to discourage this conclusion. As proof of the existence of mind we have only history and civilization, art, science, and philosophy. If it is true that the mind can know and seek to know itself in ways analogous to its experience of the world, then there are more, richer data to be gleaned from every age and every culture, and from every moment of introspection, of deep awareness of the self.

Cosmology and the Vedic Astrologers

Before considering the subjective nature of Bhagavat cosmology, we should take a look at the objective aspect of the ancient wisdom traditions of India. Even before getting into psychological considerations or metaphysical discussions we must give credit to the analysis made thousands of years ago by our scientific peers in India.

The Surya Siddhanta is a relatively old astrological work in Sanskrit explaining the various relations between the planets. Vedic astronomers, working with the naked eye calculated the size of the solar system at about 4 billion miles. Their figures were not perfect, but surprisingly astute for an ancient civilization. 

Those figures are close to the size of the magnetosphere of the Sun which reaches out to Pluto and is the shape of an EGG (anda) or an oval. While some translate the word “anda” to mean universe it probably refers to egg-shaped oval orbits of the planets held within the gravitational field of the Sun. Vedic cosmology is very complex. In the ancient Vedas, Upanishads, Itihasas, and Puranas of India are various creation stories. These mythological attempts at understanding the nature of the universe vary from one epoch to another according to the age. For example, in the 5^th Canto of Bhagavatam^[iii], we find

SB 5.20.43

aṇḍa-madhya-gataḥ sūryo
dyāv-ābhūmyor yad antaram
sūryāṇḍa-golayor madhye
koṭyaḥ syuḥ pañca-viṁśatiḥ

^[iv]Translation: 
The sun is situated in the middle of the universe, in the area between Bhūrloka and Bhuvarloka, which is called antarikṣa, outer space. The distance between the sun and the circumference of the universe is twenty-five koṭi yojanas [two billion miles].
Purport: 
The word koṭi means ten million, and a yojana is eight miles. The diameter of the universe is fifty koṭi yojanas (four billion miles). Therefore, since the sun is in the middle of the universe, the distance between the sun and the edge of the universe is calculated to be twenty-five koṭi yojanas (two billion miles).

The size of the solar system referred to above depends on whether we include planets which are only observable by modern telescope or by the means available to observes during the Vedic age. Pluto is no longer considered a planet, so it would be incorrect to consider Pluto as part of any distance measurement involving our solar system. Uranus and Neptune are invisible to the naked eye. At the outer limits of the solar system is Uranus. Uranus' distance from the Sun varies according to its orbit, Uranus travels in an elliptical orbit around the sun once every 84 Earth years. At its closest (perihelion), the distance to Uranus from the star is 1.7 billion miles (2.5 billion km); at its farthest (aphelion), 1.89 billion miles (3 billion km).  So if the Puranas give a distance of 2 billion miles to the outer reaches of the solar system, I'd say it's a pretty decent ballpark estimate for measurements that date back a few thousand years.

Of course the age of the Puranas is debatable, but even if given a very later date, say 300 BC-1200 AD, the estimates of the ancient sages were amazingly close. The word "universe" has often referred to the solar system since the sun and planets are our immediate cosmic neighborhood, readily observed by the naked eye. It is worth mentioning that the wisdom literatures of ancient India envisaged a world that passed endlessly between phases of creation and destruction.

The concept of a cyclical universe, which differs markedly from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view of a created universe finite in time, has raised its head in some scientific cosmologies of today.

In the above-quoted Sanskrit from the Bhagavat Purana we find a heliocentric universe described well ahead of Galileo and Copernicus. The word anda means egg and refers to the elliptical orbit of planets and stars centuries before Kepler and others were able to perfect their mathematical models. The orbits under consideration are "egg-like" or eliptical. So the Puranas have a heliocentric universe with eliptical orbits. The anda or egg described here appears to be the solar system.

So the accomplishments of the so-called “Vedic” observers are quite legion. Even to skeptics. According to his book, God and the Multiverse, by atheist scientist Victor Stenger, “In astronomy, the Hindu astronomical work called the Surya Siddhanta, written about 400 CE by an unknown author, gave the average length of the sidereal year that is only 1.4 seconds longer than the modern value, and it stood for over a thousand years as the most accurate measurement of that quantity made anywhere in the world.”

Creation myths and multiverses

The ancient theories of Vedic cosmology also extend to a conception of the universe as a multiverse, or an infinite string of infinite universes, constantly dying and being regenerated. This version is found in many places in the Upanishads, Bhagavad-Gita, and in different Puranas. In different mythological versions of creation, including Greek, Biblical, and Koranic, there is no mention of multiverses. But the idea of higher and higher levels of infinite is repeated throughout the literature of Ancient India.

Scientists constantly belittle the Biblical version of creation with only one solar system created by one God, but the Puranas posit the existence multiuniverses. For example,  in the Bhagavat Purana, when Lord Brahma, nominal "creator" of the universe, visits Krishna in Goloka he finds innumerable other creator-gods waiting in line. The idea is that there are innumerable Creators of innumerable solar systems with innumerable earth planets, not merely one. The Vedic cosmology contemplates an infinite number of solar systems with an infinite number of earth planets in infinite universes.

Various creation myths or stories are given in the ancient wisdom traditions of the Puranas. An important one is the idea of Mahavishnu. According to Adi Lila of Caitanya Caritamrita by Kaviraj Goswami, Mahavishnu exhales innumerable universes through the transcendental pores of his skin. This may seem like the most outlandish mythology, but in fact the concept goes deeper than the modern vision of many scientists.

 

The Subjective Universe

The physical cosmology of the universe is a question for astronomers and physicists who argue over the composition of comets and the cosmological constant. But what of spiritual cosmology. If the mind, or soul, or consciousness exists, what is its characteristic nature? We may speak of different dimensions or worlds. What of the mental world? What of the spiritual world, if it exists? Dante gives the Western European view of the mythological cosmology of the worlds: heaven, hell, and purgatory. We have heard of other mystic cosmologies, for example the Bardos of the Tibetan Book of the dead, or the different stages that the ancient Aztec and Mayan cultures passed through on the way to the land of the dead. But these ways of seeing reality appear to modern psychologists as fanciful. Perhaps they reflect a deeper, systematic understanding of the subconscious. But are there no other alternative conceptions available to us by which we may have a grammar for understanding the other worlds of reality?

When we speak of cosmology we may use the word “world” literally to refer to an actually physical place, for example, the earth planet. But in ordinary usage it is far more common to use the word “world” to refer to something else. “The world is not treating me well,” is not to be taken literally. Certainly there must be someone in this world who loves you and treats you well. The word “world” has a metaphoric sense not lost on the ancients. On the news we hear talk of the “world of finance,” “the world of sports,” and so on. The world of Wall Street then is not an absolute geographical location, but has its metaphoric sense as well.  The information highway of the world wide web is not a physical highway, but refers to our access to information through a telecommunication network. At the same time, the ancients who wrote in metaphor are not always describing a three-dimensional physical reality when they speak of the mental world, or the heavenly worlds. The mythological grammar of the ancients was meant to be deciphered by enlightened or swan-like persons.

And so it is that beyond the worlds of empiric observation, we must go deeper to decipher the truths about living consciousness in the physical world. How does the subjective or metaphysical aspect of reality work in concert with the physical laws of nature to create the known world. What we are trying to illustrate is the "subjective" evolution of the universe. Our world is a peculiar balance of metaphysical and physical forces. The velocity of a falling object is a matter of physical force, and the so-called laws of material nature cover the problem with a mathematical formula. But life and consciousness resist definition by mathematical formulas and are generally considered as "metaphysical."  Scientists, as we have pointed out, are generally not interested in metaphysical problems and feel that the genesis of the universe is entirely a physical process that can best be described using a mathematical model.

Unfortunately the mathematical models are useless in explaining where the energy came from to produce the phenomenon known as "the big bang." So, this problem is left unexamined, since it is unknowable.

And so we have in modern science many speculative ideas such as string theory and multiverses.

Strangely, many of the "solutions" to the problem involve concepts that verge on metaphysical, such as the idea of parallel universes, multi-universes, "quantum" universes, holographic universes, and the like.  And in solving the mysteries of creations, many "scientists" get involved in a kind of science-fiction/fantasy world. Their fantastic versions of universal genesis really involve magical thinking on a grand scale, to the point of creating their own version of mythology.  I can't get into a full critique of that mythology here, but what we are developing in our script is an alternate vision of genesis, one congruent with the ancient wisdom traditions of India.

According to the ancient wisdom of India, what we know as universal reality is a kind of hologram, a "projection" if you like. The world exists only as a function of consciousness. The physical world is based on the metaphysical world. It comes into being as a consequence of perception. In this sense reality is perception. But we must be careful: We don't create our own reality based on our personal perception in the Berekeleyian sense.  According to the Adwaita school of monism, it's all one, we're one with God and the Universe, so we create the universe. But the Chaitanya school takes exception with this idea of one-ness. How could we be God? It's nonsensical. The Chaitanya school takes the interpretation of Vedanta from the Bhagavatam: Brahmeti, Paramatmeti, Bhagavan iti sabdyate...There is a three-fold manifestation of Divinity, soul, supersoul, and the personal God. So how does that figure into our genesis story? We souls as subjects perceive the world into existence as objective reality, but it is simultaneously perceived into existence by divinity as super-subject or Parmatma. So existence is real. Reality is rock-hard objective. But is is objectively real because it is perceived both by subject and supersubject.  This is what is meant by subjective evolution of consciousness. The material universe is real, but its reality depends on consciousness.

The Absolute Conscious Reality doesn't "create" the world as such, according to this view. Rather, he has a hazy perception of a zone for inquisitive conscious beings called in Sanskrit as  jivatmas. Out of respect for their innate freedom of inquisitive exploitation, the Divinity projects conscious energy into that zone. The jivatmas who want independence become fascinated with the projection and in turn exert their creative project power into sustaining that zone, a kind of collective consciousness mass hypnosis. The projection is sustained externally by the metaphysical power of a divine being, by his glance, by his perception. So, God perceives the world, and so doing, creates it. The living beings infuse the world with all their energy, in an infinite collective     dream of exploitation, whose reality is guaranteed and overseen by Paramatma, the aspect of divinity that permeates the world.

This is the explanation of how perception becomes reality, according to the Chaitanya school of Vedanta. So the words "subjective" and "perception are important."  So "the god who perceives the world" implies that by seeing he is "creating."  But we are purposefully avoiding the word "creation" here.

The idea is that since the universe itself is in a state of flux, a "liquid" state if you like, the laws of material nature aren't quite "set," that is, they haven't gelled or hardened yet.  The laws of material nature are there in potential but haven't quite "materialized."  Before material nature exists the laws governing that nature also don't exist. As material nature evolves into being so the laws governing that nature also evolve into being. If time-space doesn't exist, there are no mathematical models or formulas governing time space.

As time-space becomes less a subtle projection of consciousness and more of a hard reality in the first nanoseconds of creation the laws of material nature become detectable and its possible to create mathematical models of existence. Before this it isn't quite possible. Both material reality and the formulas and laws governing that reality are malleable. So think of consciousness as a kind of gaseous state that cools and hardens into the "icy" state of material existence. Before the material existence is clearly manifest the so-called "laws of nature" exist as "primal forces." In Sanskrit these forces are referred to as the gunas or "modes" of material nature: sattva, rajas, and tamas. The combinations and permutations of sattva, rajas, and tamas bring into existence the variegatedness of material nature from earth water fire air ether to the different species of life.

 At the same time, keep in mind that great seers have reflected on these truths and have given us deep mythological metaphors by which to contemplate their meaning. And despite the discoveries of modern science and the speculation of the brilliant minds of the 20th century, I still find light in the message of Prabhupada and Shridhar Maharaja.

Bhagavat Cosmology, of course,  contains a great deal of metaphor, metaphysics and mysticism. It must be seen through the correct lens. It may be best understood through the lens of the gayatri mantra. B.R. Shridhar explains in his commentary that the gayatri mantra gives the full Bhagavat Cosmology. Put another way, the Bhagavatam is the elaborate commentary of the Gayatri Mantra.

The intermediate steps are supplied in supportive sastra revealing that the meaning of Gayatri is non-different from Srimad Bhagavatam. The Garuda Purana is generally considered one of the oldest Puranas.  And there it is mentioned,

artho ‘yam brahma-sutranam, bharatartha-vinirnayah

gayatri-bhasya-rupo ‘sau, vedartha-paribrmhitah

(Garuda Purana & Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa 10.3)

"'The meaning of the Vedanta-sutra is present in Srimad-Bhagavatam. The full purport of the Mahabharata is also there. The commentary of the Brahma-gayatri is also there and fully expanded with all Vedic knowledge.” Bhaktivedanta Swami.

According to the explanation given by Shridhar Maharaja in his commentary on the gayatri mantra, The Bhagavat Cosmology is elaborately explained in Srimad Bhagavatam, but the entire Bhagavat Purana and its cosmology may be considered as a commentary on the Gayatri.  The gayatri mantra is very ancient and is mentioned in the oldest of the Puranas.

Let’s look at Shidhar Maharaja’s commentary.

Shridhar Maharaja’s Commentary on Bhagavat Cosmology and the Gayatri Mantra

 “What is the meaning of Gayatri?” he says,  “It means in Sanskrit, ganat trayate, a particular kind of song which gives us salvation, relief and emancipation.”  Gayatri is known as the mother of the Vedas and Gayatri has produced the whole Veda.”

If we examine the Vedic conclusion from its most condensed aphorism to its most extensive expression we shall find that it begins with oṁkara, the Vedic syllable Oṁ. ॐ 

That truth is expressed as the gāyatrī mantra, then it appears in the form of the  Vedas and then as the Vedānta. Finally it is given its fullest expression in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Since the meaning, the purpose of Vedic knowledge progresses in this line, the gāyatrī mantra must contain within it the meaning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

In other words, a close look at the inner meaning of Gayatri meaning will give us the purport of the Bhagavat Purana itself. The first emanation of divine sound is the transcendental syllable Om. Then comes the Gayatri, the Vedas, the Vedanta-Sutra and then finally, the Srimad Bhagavatam – the mature fruit of all Vedic conclusions. What is the purport of the gayatri mantra then? It is the Krishna conception of Reality the Beautiful.  The problem is this is an esoteric meaning. It is difficult to understand the inner meaning, but it can be understood through meditation.

Here Shridhar Maharaja begins his deep explanation of the mantra:

Om bhur bhuvah svah tat savitur varenyam

bhargo devasya dhimahi dhiyoh yoh nah pracodayat om.

Now while this commentary was published long ago in India in the Bengali language it is little known to the West. We asked Shridhar Maharaja to explain it to us in English and we published his explanation in 1985 at Guardian of Devotion Press at San Jose, California, in a book called, “The Guardian of Devotion.” 

Shridhar Maharaja explains, “ the meaning, the purport of the Gayatri mantra is found in the full-fledged conception of the Srimad Bhagavatam. This Krsna conception of Godhead is the highest. Gayatri must give us this meaning. How to extract the Krsna conception from Gayatri? This is the present objective placed before us. How to extract Srimad Bhagavatam, the Krsna conception, from within the womb of Gayatri? The Gayatri mantra must say that there is Krsna consciousness within her womb and that should be drawn out.

As we sat at his feet in Nabadwip dham, he said, “I heard that Srila Jiva Goswami had given such a meaning but I could not find it. I heard that he had extended the meaning of Gayatri leading to Krsna consciousness but I could not  find his commentary written anywhere. However, the tendency was awakened within me to understand this connection. It prompted me to draw the meaning of the Gayatri towards Krsna consciousness and so, I made my commentary.

“The general meaning of Gayatri is, “That song which grants liberation. Now liberation must some positive meaning. Liberation means not only freedom from the negative side, but continued positive attainment.

This is the definition of mukti or liberation found in Srimad Bhagavatam 2.10.6. muktir hitvanyatha rupam  sva-rupena vyavasthitih  It is not only to attain freedom from the negative side, but Srimad Bhagavatam gives the positive attainment. Liberation as continued and progressive freedom from conditioning. Until and unless we attain our highest possible positive position, true liberation is not effected.
So according to the definition above, without dedication or bhakti, there is no salvation, or mukti. Real mukti  then, implies bhakti, or dedication.

According to this view,  a mere withdrawal from the negative plane cannot be called liberation. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “the object of our life is self-determination.” And self-determination is only possible through dedication.

 We must determine our normal function in the organic whole--not through mere emancipation from the negative side, but with our participation in the positive function in the domain of service. This is only possible through service in the land of dedication. This is considered to be the highest attainment for the living soul.

This is the true meaning of the Gayatri Mantra. The word, “Gayatri” comes from two Sanskrit words – ganat and trayate. Trayate means “Positive attainment to the final stage (svarupena vyavasthitih)”. We are to take this meaning. Gānat means “Not mere sound, but musical sound.” That musical sound which grants us the highest positive deliverance indicates the  sankritana of Caitanya Mahāprabhu and the flute-song of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The gayatrī mantra carries the touch of the flute of Krsna.

 We find Divine Sound and music there. Now we shall analyze what is the Brahma Gayatri Mantra.

om bhur bhuvah svah, tat savitur varenyam

bhargo devasya dhimahi, dheyo yo nah pracodayat

The purport of the brahma-gayatrī mantra is as follows: the first word is Oṁ.

ॐ Oṁ is the seed mantra which contains everything within it. Bhur is where we are – the world of our experience, the world of our sense perception. Bhuvah is at the back of that – our mental acquisition. The effect of our mental acquisition takes us to our present position of experience. It is not by accidental existence that we are here in this world of our experience. We have acquired such a position by our previous karma. And the area of our previous karma is called bhuvah-loka. Bhuvah-loka is the mental sphere.

This physical sphere is only an outcome of that mental sphere.

The present world of experience is the product of our previous mental impulses. Svaḥ means Buddhi-loka, the plane of decision-making. What to do? What not to do? What I like; what I dislike. This is called sankalpah/vikalpah. I like this; I don’t like that – this is the soil of the mental world of acceptance and rejection. You may like to do something, but you may not do that – otherwise you will be a loser. This faculty or reason is svar-loka.

In this way, in this mundane world, there are different planes of existence – Bhur-, Bhuvah-, Svah-, Mahar-, Jana-, Tapah- and Satya-loka. The negative side has got these seven planes of life from Bhur-loka up to Satya-loka where the creator, Lord Brahma, lives. The master of the whole world of experience of the negative side lives in Satya-loka. The four Kumaras - devotees who hold high positions as saints – also reside in Satya-loka.

These seven layers of the material world, from the gross to the subtle, are dealt with in detail in Srila Sanatana Goswami’s Brhat Bhagavatamrtam. The negative side, consisting of the combination of the three modes of material nature that produces this world, finishes in Satya-loka. Then begins Viraja, the verge of the equilibrium of the negative side – the last limit of material consciousness. And the verge of equilibrium of the positive side is Brahmaloka, the beginning of the “Land of Service” – the equipoised verge of the positive world.

Then, the world of Reality, the world of dedication and service, the soul’s world proper, begins there in Siva-loka and continues further in the plane of Vaikuntha. The devotee, Siva, then Sri Narayana in the Vaikunthas. In this way, they develop into Krsna-loka, Vrndavana. The seven planes that are represented in the Gayatri mantra by Bhur, Bhuvah and Svah, are summarized in one word – tat.

Savitur means Surya, the sun. Sun means figuratively, ‘that which illuminates all objects.” This – the three gross and subtle strata of the world – is shown to us by a particular light. What is that? That is jivatma – the soul. The sun does not show us the world, but the soul’s influence does. It is not the sun, but it is really the soul that shows us this world. In Bhagavad-gita we find, ekah krtsnam lokam imam ravih:

 “This world is really being expressed to us by the atma, the soul which is just like the sun. The sun can show us the colour-world, the ear can reveal the sound-world, the sense of touch can reveal the touch-world, etc. However, in the centre is the soul who gives us an understanding of the environment, the world of perception. This perception is possible only because of the soul. The soul is like the sun as it is showing everything – tat savitur.

To summarize, all these seven strata of our experience are reduced to one word, tat – that. Who is showing us “that”? The illuminator – the sun is showing us. “Sun” here means soul. The soul means not the “universal soul”, but the “individual soul”. The individual soul is the cause of the world. “It is not that the mind is in the world, but that the world is in the mind,” said Berkeley. The world is in the mind. Everything is also in the sun. Whatever we see – that is in the sun. The sun can show us everything. If there is no sun, then everything is dark and we cannot see anything. The soul is light, the subject, and the objects are these seven planes of experience. If the atma – the soul – withdraws, then everything is gone. This kind of consciousness gives birth to the path leading to Goloka.

Varenyam means puja, worshipable, venerable and reverential. Our soul is venerable. The soul is the subject and this world is its object. However, there is another domain that is venerated and worshiped by the soul. This is the Supersoul area. “Bhargo”.

Bhargo means the Super-subjective area where the Supersoul, the Super-subject resides. Bhargo means:

dhamna svena sada nirasta-kuhakam satyam param dhimahi

In the first verse of Srimad Bhagavatam it is mentioned that here we are going to deal with another world, by whose rays all misconceptions are brushed aside. In its own pristine glory, it shows the very abode of the Lord. I am talking about that world. So, the subject is the soul, and the object is the world of mundane experience.

And the subject’s venerable area that is superior to the subject – the soul – is that Super-subjective area. Bhargo means, “More subtle than the soul, and holding more important position than the jiva-soul.” That is the Supersoul area. Bhargo means in general, ordinary light. But, really it is the Supersoul Who can see and can show everything in more detail. Just as an x-ray can show us what the ordinary eye cannot see, so bhargo, the svarupa-sakti, the higher more powerful light, can also reveal the soul. Then bhargo belongs to whom? It belongs to Deva, pertaining to Deva.

Devasya means belonging to Deva. What is the meaning of Deva? Deva means, “Who is very beautiful and playful.” That is Sri Krsna – Reality the Beautiful. He is non-differentiated substance, but is full of lila – Divine Pastimes. Deva means beauty and pastimes combined. His domain is bhargo which is venerated by the jiva-soul. What is that? It is the svarupa-sakti, the vaibhava, the extension of Srimati Radharani. She holds the full service responsibility and energy to serve Sri Krsna. So bhargo is no less than the vaibhava, the extended body of Srimati Radharani containing everything for the service of Sri Krsna. This is the Rasaraja-Mahabhava conception. Bhargo represents Mahabhava, the Predominated Moiety, and Deva – Krsna – represents Rasaraja, the Predominating Moiety.

Dhimahi in the Gayatri mantram means, “bhargo devasya dhimahi”. We are invited, “You come and meditate.” What sort of meditation is possible there in that Super-subjective area? That meditation is in the sense of culture – cultivation of service to the Higher by the practice of veneration and worship. This sort of experience is possible there. Dhimahi is not abstract meditation but means Krsnanusilanam – to participate in the spontaneous flow of the current of devotion in that Super-subjective area, Vrndavan.

Dhiyo yo’ nah pracodayat – And what will be the result? The capacity of your cultivation will be increased.

dasa kare vetan, more deha prema-dhana

We serve and what remuneration will we get? We will receive a greater capacity with more willingness to serve. What is the remuneration of service? The serving principle, the serving spirit is increased and enhanced – just as interest is added to capital in the bank. I am getting the interest: I do not draw the money but the interest comesand is added to the capital – in this way.

dasa kare vetan, more deha prema-dhana

We shall try to cultivate with all our attention towards that plane. We shall try to serve, to dedicate ourselves, and the dedicating principle will be increased again and again. He will give us prema as remuneration. Prema means the special capacity to render loving service. This is the inner meaning of the Gayatri Mantra. The Gayatri Mantra is the song of salvation. This song that begins from Goloka descends as sankirtana in the middle stages to improve our service towards the highest goal. Kirtana means that which is sun.

 So, sankirtana begins with the Brahma Gayatri and then comes to the Gauranga stage. It began in Krsna-kirtan, touching this plane and then again, it reaches Vrndavana as the flute-song – kirtana. “The sweet sound of the flute of Krsna”.

The sankirtana of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu reinstates us very quickly in our highest serving position as all are interconnected.

When we enter the area of Vrndavana, there – the sound of the vamsi, the flute, helps to excite and engage the servants in their own respective duties. When the flute is sounded, then the Gopis and other devotees become well adjusted in their respective duties. At night, hearing the sound of the flute of Krsna, the Gopis will run to the Yamuna thinking, “Oh, is He coming or is He going?” When Mother Yasoda also hears the flute, she thinks, “My son is nearby and He is coming home very soon.” In this way, the sound of the flute is engaging the different servants of respective positions to be mindful of their own duties, their service.

krsna kirtan gayatri-radha padam dhimahi

Radha padam dhimahi: all these services are represented fully in Sri Radhika: and all others like branches are parts of Her. Madhurya-rasa is the mukhya-rasa, the chief rasa, the culmination of all rasas. In the conception of Rasaraj-Mahabhava, Srimati Radharani is Mahabhava who represents the whole serving attitude of Goloka, the Abode of Sri Krsna.

The flute-song of Sri Krsna is reminding us and engaging us in our service. And what is that service? That service is to surrender ourselves in the service of Srimati Radharani and to accept Her suggestions. The Brahma-Gayatri Mantra will excite and entice us to be mindful about Srimati Radharani’s sweet lotus feet – to obey Her orders. She represents the whole Super-subjective serving area. So, to try to engage in Her service, under Her order, to accept Her direction and to obey Her – that is service to Srimati Radharani. In this way, the meaning of the Brahma Gayatri has been drawn to Radha-dasyam, self-determination – svarupena vyavasthitih.

The partial representation in vatsalya-rasa and sakhya-rasa are also present there in some other way. They are part and parcel of the mukhya-rasa, the chief rasa and they all support this main rasa. In vatsalya-rasa, the devotees will serve Nanda-Yasoda. In sakhya-rasa, they will serve Sridham-Sudama, but ultimately the whole substance in one conception is included in Srimati Radharani. So, Radha-dasyam – service to Srimati Radharani has been drawn out from the Brahma Gayatri mantra. This is the ultimate end of our life. It cannot but be upward and progressive.

bhargo vai vrsabhanuja-atma-vibhavaikaradhana sri-puram

Bhanu means the sun, or who illuminates by light, Srimati Radharani is the daughter of King Vrsabhanu so the word bhanu has been selected. This represents Her personal extended self. Vaibhava means that which comes out as extended self. Prabhava is the central representation and vaibhava is the outer extension. The very gist of the svarupa-sakti is Srimati Radharani and the whole svarupa-sakti, the internal potency, is Her extended self.

What is Her characteristic? She is aradhana – Who worships Herself.

She is Sri, Laksmi, the gist of beauty, the beauty and sweetness of service to Sri Krsna. The town, the abode of Her beautiful service is the whole svarupa-sakti. Just as rays of light extend from the sun, so the whole svarupa-sakti is an extension of the person Mahabhava, Sri Radhika. Rasaraj and Mahabhava – this svarupa-sakti – is the extension of Mahabhava. Bhargo means the extended self of Mahabhava. Mahabhava means aradhana (a particular mood of worship that satisfies Sri Krsna), Sri, and Laksmi.

Radharani is also called Sri. Her sobha is Her extension, Her beautifully extended self and that is the whole bhargo, the whole area. She is the gist, the essence, and this is the extended self. And what is Her nature? That is All-Serving. She has developed this whole area of “bhargo”. She has developed Herself into such a beautiful area of Her svarupa-sakti, and thereby She serves Her Lord, Sri Krsna. They all come out from Her beautiful, effulgent Self. The very gist, the very sweetness is She. Sri Radha in the Rasaraj-Mahabhava conception.  In this way, I have drawn out rādhā-dāsyam  as the meaning of the gāyatrī mantra and have tried to represent it in Sanskrit verse. This is the inner meaning of the Brahma Gayatri Mantra.

---

[i]               This is covered in a book called "God and the Multiverse" written by prominent atheist Victor J. Stenger. The point about the sidereal year of the Hindus above quoted is from his book.

[ii]             Rupert Sheldrake, the Science Delusion.

[iii]            A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami published BBT

[iv]            aṇḍa-madhya-gataḥ — situated in the center of the universe; sūryaḥ — the sun globe; dyāv-ābhūmyoḥ — the two planetary systems Bhūrloka and Bhuvarloka; yat — which; antaram — in between; sūrya — of the sun; aṇḍa-golayoḥ — and the globe of the universe; madhye — in the middle; koṭyaḥ — groups of ten million; syuḥ — are; pañca-viṁśatiḥ — twenty-five.